Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Berg Komt Er

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Die Berg Komt Er[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Die Berg Komt Er" was a media campaign and not a real movement or serious proposal for anything. The campaign has been removed time and again on NL.WP. Proposing removal per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC) gidonb (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which type content as described in WP:NOTSOAPBOX would apply here? – Editør (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editør Thank you for the question! Most significantly 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment 4. Self-promotion Advertising, and 5. marketing or public relations, but there are elements also of some other WP:NOTSOAPBOX and other WP:NOT. To strike a balance and also be specific I generalized to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. gidonb (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article is aiming at either self-promotion or advertising/propaganda/marketing. – Editør (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe is not always the strongest basis for educated opinions. Please study this media campaign in its local context as the Dutch folks do who keep removing it from NL.WP for very good reasons.gidonb (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation was unconvincing. Furthermore, Dutch Wikipedia policy and standards often differ from the English Wikipedia; only English Wikipedia policy and standards matter here. – Editør (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to convince you. There is or can be a discussion below the inclusion messages. I have nominated this media campaign for deletion under WP:NOTSOAPBOX as a service to the Wikipedia community and look forward to read all opinions. I may react or not. If you wish to express your own opinion, you may do so at the appropriate place. Saying that there can be differences between the Dutch and English language Wikipedias is stating the obvious. Fact is that I have nominated this article under our rules. You even asked me to specify. Still, the repetitive removal of this media campaign by the WP community that know its sociopolitical context can be relevant information. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:NOTSOAPBOX does not apply. – Editør (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the folks at the Dutch wiki have roundly deleted this gives me pause -- are their rules for this really that different? I also agree with Editør that WP:NOTSOAPBOX is a poor rationale -- the article is neutrally worded and doesn't appear to be promotional in tone. We do of course have many articles on things that are only proposed. There was a flurry of coverage in 2011. Then, this article appeared in early 2012. My concern is that there may not be enough WP:LASTING notability here, despite multiple sources. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I'm seeing refs on the article, such as Wired, that are dated 2013 even though if you go to the link they are in fact 2011, as well. Not sure what that's about and my guess is it's an honest mistake, not an attempt to give a misleading impression the coverage lasted longer than it did. The science publication link that I provided above was mistakenly tagged by Google News as "2014," even though was published two years earlier. I suspect that's what's happening here, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:LASTING seems relevant, but it's a bit too soon to tell really. The project was initially covered in 2011 and 2012, but there are also later mentions and discussions, such as this 2015 article and this 2016 article (note that The Berg, a somewhat similar plan, was also discussed in the latter). – Editør (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw those. I couldn't read all of the Volkskrant piece due to the paywall but it seemed to me that it was a column about upcoming books, including one by the cyclist who had once (jokingly) suggested the idea? Did I get that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the story as an entrance point to discuss Dutch books about cycling on mountains. – Editør (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether referring to the deletion history on the Dutch Wiki is relevant in this case. From the discussion history here and here, it seems their entire discussion was whether the article was 'encyclopedia worthy' (also referred to there as 'relevant'). However, a reading of Wikipedia:Relevantie and its talk page reveal that the Dutch WP:REL (upon which the entire discussion is based) is a de facto-guideline, serving a similar purpose to our notability requirement, but the precise guidelines are much less clearly defined on the Dutch wiki. Based on their 'relevance'/'encyclopedia worthyness' guideline, the discussion about "Die Berg Komt Er" on the Dutch wiki revolved around whether coverage of the event by (reputable) (inter)national news sources for a non-insignificant period, followed up by feasibility studies, were sufficient to merit an article on the Dutch wiki.

Therefore, instead of going by the Dutch wiki history of this page, I think we need to assess notability and verifiability based on our own criteria. Of mention are e.g. WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE, WP:NOTNEWS. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposal itself is absurd, but it is verifiable and notable - we thought it notable enough to put it on the Main Page! I think the Dutch are removing from their wiki out of sheer embarrassment. The fact that a structure of 2,000 metres (7,000 ft) was proposed and studied merits an article. Jacknstock (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jacknstock. The amount of serious study makes the proposal significant. The tense in the article needs to be changed from "is" to "was" as I don't believe it is still under consideration. MB 05:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is another proposal for construction of a mountain, in the UAE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.